stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 87
Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
@80
Thank you for the kind and non-argumentative reply.
In response, I want to take your proposal seriously, and give you an opportunity to explain it. Please do not take this as argumentative. I want to be sure that I understand your proposal.
You say, that instead of CD, you say, “common biochemical mechanisms would be more accurate.”
Okay, let’s try and take that seriously. Now comes a really important, and focused question. This question is on a specific piece of evidence, but the same evidence could be extended to a very large class of analogous cases. The question is rooted in my dialogue with Hunter.
http://swami.wustl.edu/evidenc....spatial
Divergence (nucleotide differences) varies across the genome. These differences vary by chromosome, position within chromosomes, and chromosome banding patterns. This is a puzzling feature, that was reported in the original 2005 chimp genome paper.
It turns out, that the directly measured distribution of de novo mutation rate and recombination rates across the human genome entirely explains the variance in divergence. This fits the hypothesis of a human/chimp common ancestor, and mechanistically explains the variation in divergence as a consequence of experimentally measureable differences of mutation and recombination rates.
So here is my question to you. How does “common biochemical mechanisms” explain this strange correlation in the data? How does your theory explain why human-chimp divergence correlates perfectly with mutation and recombination rates?
If we do not have an answer to this, I would submit that “common biochemical mechanisms” is not a suitable replacement for “common descent” in biology.
In contrast, “descent with designed modification,” as you have also previously proposed, might be a conceptual alternative, though it will not be widely accepted in science. |
KF hasn't accused Professor S of being demonic scum...yet.....
|
